36a) Findings
The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings in this matter describe a reasonable range of
alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan Project. The City
Council also finds that the FEIR and record of proceedings in this
matter contains sufficient information about each alternative to
allow for meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison of the
alternatives.
2. No Project Alternative
a) No Project
The No Project Alternative represents the status quo; the project
site would continue to remain developed with the unoccupied
Imperial Avenue Elementary School and no improvements would
be constructed at the site. No significant and adverse
environmental impacts would occur as a result of the No Project
Alternative.
b) Finding
The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative would fail to
meet the objectives of the proposed project as stated in FEIR
Section 2.0, Project Description, would not be consistent with the
site's zoning of PRD which encourages development of the site
with high quality residential housing, and would not accommodate
the housing needs of the City of El Segundo, as identified in the
2009 Housing Element.
3. Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from
among the reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that are
evaluated. In addition to the No Project Alternative, the EIR analyzed
Alternative 1 (Senior Assisted Living Facility and Single - Family
Alternative) and Alternative 2 (Senior Townhome and Single - Family
Alternative).
The No Project Alternative was determined to be the environmentally
superior alternative as it would eliminate all significant and unavoidable
environmental effects; however, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)
requires that if the No Project/No Development Alternative is determined
to be the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally
superior alternative must be identified among the other alternatives.
Accordingly, the environmentally superior alternative would be Alternative
2. While both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would achieve all of the
stated project objectives, Alternative 2 would generate the fewest number
of trips compared to project Options 1 and 2 and Alternative 1. As a
result, although the impact conclusions would be the same under both
project Options and Alternatives, Alternative 2 would reduce GHG
26